JazzRemington
12th May 2007, 06:02
I just started reading the 2nd volume of Capital and I have two quick questions.
In Chapter 1, section 4, Marx writes of the transportation industry with the general forumla of "M—C(L+Mp)...P—M'." He also says that this is basically a service. Would this formula stand for all services that do not produce a physical commodity? For example, would it also stand for a grocery store that employs baggers, stockers, and cashiers? If so, would that mean that these laborers produce surplus-value? If not, would this people simply count as fascilitating the flow of commodities (like a merchant or book keeper)? But if that's true, then how do we get "M' (M+m, to use Marx's terms)"?
In Chapter 6, Marx writes of "genuine expenses of circulation." He writes that a merchant, while necessary sometimes, does not produce surplus value because he is mainly employing his labor to fascilitate the flow of commodities from, say, point A to point B. He produces surplus-labor, but not surplus-value. He says essentially the same for book keeping. The money the capitalist would have to pay this type of person would come from the money advanced for variable-capital and thus decrease the amount available for the type of labor that produces surplus-value (speaking in terms of ratios).
I have two questions for this chapter. One, would I be correct to say that there is no material interest to employ this type of person because he does not generate surplus-value (though he does shift the burden of buying and selling from the capitalist)? My second question is, what is the difference between a book keeper and someone who works in a service, as outlined above?
Would the difference be that operations that help fascilitate the flow of commodities are to be considered just an auxilery to what the Capitalist does, and thus do not generate surplus value or add any value to the commodities being handled? I think this makes sense because simply taking an ash tray that person A made and handing it to person B isn't a productive act. Useful, but not productive.
But then I think that would make all services that are not surplus-value generating labor unproductive, because they are just extensions of the Capitalist's functions (buying, selling, commodity circulation, etc.).
Edit: I think I just answered my question. All non-surplus-value producing services are essentially non-productive, don't add value, and are a drain on the Capitalist himself because it's less money that can be advanced to obtain productive variable-capital (in terms of ratios). I'm remembering what Marx wrote in this part, in that it does not make a difference that the job of book keeping, buying, and selling (for instance) are the job of the producer, or the individuated jobs of specialists.
But I still don't understand how we can get M' (M+m) in the formula "M—C(L+Mp)...P—M'." If this kind of service produces no surplus-value, how can we have M'?
In Chapter 1, section 4, Marx writes of the transportation industry with the general forumla of "M—C(L+Mp)...P—M'." He also says that this is basically a service. Would this formula stand for all services that do not produce a physical commodity? For example, would it also stand for a grocery store that employs baggers, stockers, and cashiers? If so, would that mean that these laborers produce surplus-value? If not, would this people simply count as fascilitating the flow of commodities (like a merchant or book keeper)? But if that's true, then how do we get "M' (M+m, to use Marx's terms)"?
In Chapter 6, Marx writes of "genuine expenses of circulation." He writes that a merchant, while necessary sometimes, does not produce surplus value because he is mainly employing his labor to fascilitate the flow of commodities from, say, point A to point B. He produces surplus-labor, but not surplus-value. He says essentially the same for book keeping. The money the capitalist would have to pay this type of person would come from the money advanced for variable-capital and thus decrease the amount available for the type of labor that produces surplus-value (speaking in terms of ratios).
I have two questions for this chapter. One, would I be correct to say that there is no material interest to employ this type of person because he does not generate surplus-value (though he does shift the burden of buying and selling from the capitalist)? My second question is, what is the difference between a book keeper and someone who works in a service, as outlined above?
Would the difference be that operations that help fascilitate the flow of commodities are to be considered just an auxilery to what the Capitalist does, and thus do not generate surplus value or add any value to the commodities being handled? I think this makes sense because simply taking an ash tray that person A made and handing it to person B isn't a productive act. Useful, but not productive.
But then I think that would make all services that are not surplus-value generating labor unproductive, because they are just extensions of the Capitalist's functions (buying, selling, commodity circulation, etc.).
Edit: I think I just answered my question. All non-surplus-value producing services are essentially non-productive, don't add value, and are a drain on the Capitalist himself because it's less money that can be advanced to obtain productive variable-capital (in terms of ratios). I'm remembering what Marx wrote in this part, in that it does not make a difference that the job of book keeping, buying, and selling (for instance) are the job of the producer, or the individuated jobs of specialists.
But I still don't understand how we can get M' (M+m) in the formula "M—C(L+Mp)...P—M'." If this kind of service produces no surplus-value, how can we have M'?